They massively miscalculated the amount of Uranium required to make a nuclear bomb and were many years away from making one due to not understanding the physics behind it.. There was 0% chance of a Nazi nuke in the 1940's.
Exit the Haze: Hitler – The Master strategist who resurrected Germany as a global power
- Thread starter Gudestein
- Start date
- Status
To be honest, I do find a lot of what's happened here pretty improbable.
Essentially, Hitler has been replaced with someone who, while still holding Hitlers fanatical view, is otherwise an entirely different person.
I agree that the POD is too late for a divergence of this degree.
I've seen similar issues with TLs about converting the British Commonwealth into a coherent multi-continent successor state.
The infrastructure just isnt there.
That's one of the reasons that Stalin's death is such a popular trope in Axis victory scenarios.
It's an excuse to counter the logistical nightmare.
I'm still interested.
I've heard Hitler's plans for Europe compared to bad sci fi before, and I find that apt.
Im curious to see what a sane/competant man in Hitler's shoes would do with the victory.
How would he deal with the need to govern conquests that hold multiple times his own nation's population?
Would he still be unhinged enough to attempt to genocide Europe's Jews, or would he just do what most every other antisemitic leader has done and deport them somewhere else?
How will all this insanity affect the countries that have thier middle classes maimed?
Would deported Jews make thier new homes more powerful with the influx of thier skills?
Butterflies?
How will the alliance Hitler built in Europe hold out after the external threats are gone?
Will Hitler's officers tolerate continued idealogical interference from the Nazi party, or will there be a coup?
I'm interested in seeing those questions and others answered, in this TL.
I'm willing to accept handwavium to see the perspective.
Obviously, Hitler is doing, has done, and will do evil things in this TL.
That doesn't change my interest in seeing what might happen.
The success of the Mongol invasions directly and indirectly killed something around a fourth of the world's population, but it's still fascinating history.
I've looked up fiction alt histories where Sauron won the War of the Ring.
That doesn't make me a fantasy Satan worshiper.
It's simply compelling to see someone answer the age old "what if the bad guys won" question.
With the bad guys in question being real humans, who were not all entirely evil, the question becomes even more fascinating.
Essentially, Hitler has been replaced with someone who, while still holding Hitlers fanatical view, is otherwise an entirely different person.
I agree that the POD is too late for a divergence of this degree.
I've seen similar issues with TLs about converting the British Commonwealth into a coherent multi-continent successor state.
The infrastructure just isnt there.
That's one of the reasons that Stalin's death is such a popular trope in Axis victory scenarios.
It's an excuse to counter the logistical nightmare.
I'm still interested.
I've heard Hitler's plans for Europe compared to bad sci fi before, and I find that apt.
Im curious to see what a sane/competant man in Hitler's shoes would do with the victory.
How would he deal with the need to govern conquests that hold multiple times his own nation's population?
Would he still be unhinged enough to attempt to genocide Europe's Jews, or would he just do what most every other antisemitic leader has done and deport them somewhere else?
How will all this insanity affect the countries that have thier middle classes maimed?
Would deported Jews make thier new homes more powerful with the influx of thier skills?
Butterflies?
How will the alliance Hitler built in Europe hold out after the external threats are gone?
Will Hitler's officers tolerate continued idealogical interference from the Nazi party, or will there be a coup?
I'm interested in seeing those questions and others answered, in this TL.
I'm willing to accept handwavium to see the perspective.
Obviously, Hitler is doing, has done, and will do evil things in this TL.
That doesn't change my interest in seeing what might happen.
The success of the Mongol invasions directly and indirectly killed something around a fourth of the world's population, but it's still fascinating history.
I've looked up fiction alt histories where Sauron won the War of the Ring.
That doesn't make me a fantasy Satan worshiper.
It's simply compelling to see someone answer the age old "what if the bad guys won" question.
With the bad guys in question being real humans, who were not all entirely evil, the question becomes even more fascinating.
BlackDragon98
Banned
This post basically sums up my thoughts.
Nazis cannot steamroller the Allies and Soviet with a POD after 1933.
The POD either has to be 1933 or before then, and to be honest, even 1933 is cutting it too close.
Best POD is right after WW1 in 1919 or something.
There's just not enough time, space, and resources for Nazi Germany to get every Uberweapon and Uberplan they wanted if they start reshaping themselves after the fight breaks out.
Gudestein tries his best and I appreciate him trying do it, though.
Gonna keep watching and see what surfaces.
I'm liking this so far. As someone said, "alternate history is about what is probable, not about what is likely". So while this may be low-probability it's not outright impossible
Honestly, I don't believe the British would have abandoned Iraq, Transjordania or Egypt to the Axis so easily. They had suffered defeats there, but were NOT beaten, and still controlled most of the territory (the Axis was still far from Suez and hadn't taken Cairo, and wasn't in control of Transjordania or the south of Iraq either).
The British would also have eventually overwhelmed the Germans and Italians through sheer numbers (of British, Indian and other colonial soldiers, as well as RAF fighters and bombers) in both Africa and Middle East, if they had kept fighting. Logistics were on their side.
If the fighting had continued for a year or two, the Axis would have been driven out of Iraq, Jordania, and then Syria and Lebanon (as they could hardly reinforce those areas much, given the distances), and Egyptian front would have stabilized, and then the following years, Libya would have fallen.
In the meantime, it would have turned into a giant resource sinkhole for Germany, Italy and Vichy France, hampering their efforts on the Eastern Front.
In short : the Axis was in position (diplomatically and military) to demand the recognition of their control of continental Europe (and Malta), as well as the return of Italian East Africa, and the British government had to concede that (under pressure from the US and its own people, as well as reality on the battleground)
but the British were in position to NOT give up Egypt, Levant or Iraq. And the USA would have backed Britain there.
And they have no reason to. Iraq is their oil supply, and if the Germans gain access to Iraq, they also come close to the Arabian peninsula and Iran (their other oil sources), which is a major problem as Iran was German-friendly. The Suez Canal is very important for British civilian shipping, and a major income source.
And abandoning Europe is a major humiliation (that can still be stomached now), but abandoning Middle East too is a double humiliation.
The British would also have eventually overwhelmed the Germans and Italians through sheer numbers (of British, Indian and other colonial soldiers, as well as RAF fighters and bombers) in both Africa and Middle East, if they had kept fighting. Logistics were on their side.
If the fighting had continued for a year or two, the Axis would have been driven out of Iraq, Jordania, and then Syria and Lebanon (as they could hardly reinforce those areas much, given the distances), and Egyptian front would have stabilized, and then the following years, Libya would have fallen.
In the meantime, it would have turned into a giant resource sinkhole for Germany, Italy and Vichy France, hampering their efforts on the Eastern Front.
In short : the Axis was in position (diplomatically and military) to demand the recognition of their control of continental Europe (and Malta), as well as the return of Italian East Africa, and the British government had to concede that (under pressure from the US and its own people, as well as reality on the battleground)
but the British were in position to NOT give up Egypt, Levant or Iraq. And the USA would have backed Britain there.
And they have no reason to. Iraq is their oil supply, and if the Germans gain access to Iraq, they also come close to the Arabian peninsula and Iran (their other oil sources), which is a major problem as Iran was German-friendly. The Suez Canal is very important for British civilian shipping, and a major income source.
And abandoning Europe is a major humiliation (that can still be stomached now), but abandoning Middle East too is a double humiliation.
Last edited:
I suspect after a seance in Landsberg Prison, whilst Hitler was serving his prison sentence.
Thank you all for the comments, its been the most interesting piece to write since I started on AH. I really appreciate that most have seperated the POD from the consequences also in disagreement.
Lets start with the POD: If Hitler gets off the drugs, we dont know how he would have behaved. His abuse of drugs IOTL was massive, and of a character no-one but Dr. Morel would prescribe. This is a weakness and a strength of the POD. One could have written it the other way, so Hitler stops being a gambler?
I chose to make him more calculated, thinking things thorugh, focus on the grand strategy...Why did I do that? Obviously because I knew we needed a more competent Hitler to not end up in a variation of OTL. There is a writers bias here for sure, but why not take the angle that shakes things up the most.
I used the "Halt order" as the event precipitating the POD. That I did without thinking ahead, just needed something that coincided with the need for a new grand strategy.
Having Hitler regret the "Halt order" coupled with his more grand strategy perspective, made the life of AGN and AGC in the early phase of Barbarossa very different. I encourage people to look into this, he really butched some opportunities for early successes.
Now we enter into the effect of the POD:
The new Hitler doesnt take success for granted against the SU! Biggest leap of faith. I admit it. It makes him plan the logistical effort right after the POD. The rest below depends on that. Given that conviction:
If Leningrad falls fast because of this (likely IMHO) and AGC does a little better, it snowballs into a lot better when AGN units both attack from the North-West and reinforce AGC.
If there is no delay from the Balkan campaign, the chance that AGS succeeds in the encirclements they failed IOTL is high, hence there is no delay to go south into Kiev. Again, this snowballs into a stronger AGC against a weaker defense at an earlier time for the capture of Moscow.
In the Mediterranean, I think the strategy makes perfect sense. Secure the flank before the big event begins in the SU. Prepare to knock them out later.
I have not seen convincing counterarguments thst Germany could not have made this effort in the Med, and I put he submarine efforts focused on Indian ocean, just to make sure the British could not do much about it. And when peace was made, the Suez was aready doomed. They were hurrying to save Gibraltar (which was a bluff).
Thanks for the comments! Hope you enjoy the TL. Lots of things coming up.
Lets start with the POD: If Hitler gets off the drugs, we dont know how he would have behaved. His abuse of drugs IOTL was massive, and of a character no-one but Dr. Morel would prescribe. This is a weakness and a strength of the POD. One could have written it the other way, so Hitler stops being a gambler?
I chose to make him more calculated, thinking things thorugh, focus on the grand strategy...Why did I do that? Obviously because I knew we needed a more competent Hitler to not end up in a variation of OTL. There is a writers bias here for sure, but why not take the angle that shakes things up the most.
I used the "Halt order" as the event precipitating the POD. That I did without thinking ahead, just needed something that coincided with the need for a new grand strategy.
Having Hitler regret the "Halt order" coupled with his more grand strategy perspective, made the life of AGN and AGC in the early phase of Barbarossa very different. I encourage people to look into this, he really butched some opportunities for early successes.
Now we enter into the effect of the POD:
The new Hitler doesnt take success for granted against the SU! Biggest leap of faith. I admit it. It makes him plan the logistical effort right after the POD. The rest below depends on that. Given that conviction:
If Leningrad falls fast because of this (likely IMHO) and AGC does a little better, it snowballs into a lot better when AGN units both attack from the North-West and reinforce AGC.
If there is no delay from the Balkan campaign, the chance that AGS succeeds in the encirclements they failed IOTL is high, hence there is no delay to go south into Kiev. Again, this snowballs into a stronger AGC against a weaker defense at an earlier time for the capture of Moscow.
In the Mediterranean, I think the strategy makes perfect sense. Secure the flank before the big event begins in the SU. Prepare to knock them out later.
I have not seen convincing counterarguments thst Germany could not have made this effort in the Med, and I put he submarine efforts focused on Indian ocean, just to make sure the British could not do much about it. And when peace was made, the Suez was aready doomed. They were hurrying to save Gibraltar (which was a bluff).
Thanks for the comments! Hope you enjoy the TL. Lots of things coming up.
I'm sorry, but we do know how he acted. He was a gambler right from the start, beginning with the Beer Hall Putsch attempt in 1923. It was a huge gamble that failed disastrously. He became more cautious after that, but even he still gambled repeatedly. The 1934 attempt at Anschluss is another example - hasty, badly-planned and a failure. I need to nail down the quote exactly, but at one point after Goering said that they needed to stop 'this all or nothing' business, Hitler replied that all his life he'd been into all or nothing.
Look, this is a very controversial subject and historians have been arguing for years about the degree to which Hitler was a gambler more than a planner. I would personally classify the wretched man as an opportunist. And, to reiterate my point, you have changed him in this Tl into something he never was - a master strategist. He was never that. You can take him off drugs (and I'd like to point out that Morell's concoctions did not start to get truly detrimental until further on in the war) and he's still not a master strategist. Very convincing counter-arguments about the German Med strategy have been made by the way, but you have an endpoint that you are going to write no matter what others argue, one in which Hitler wins and Europe suffers horribly.
1923-1941... If I compare My present self to the one of 18 years ago, I am certainly a master strategist.
Once again: Hitler was not. Hitler was a fundamentally lazy man who frequently replaced reality with his own version. Just because you are writing towards a set event (Hitler winning the war) that does not mean that people can't point out that you have Hitler behaving in a fundamentally different and unrealistic manner. I suspect that you need a different POD, which is where the problems start to arise about just where and when.
You could have Hitler more intellectually curious and mentally acute as a child, but that Hitler will be so different from the one we know as to be irrelevant. A more strategic Hitler probably succeeds in becoming an artist, or, ironically, fails at being a politician.
I'm certainly more pragmatic and rational than I was eighteen years ago, but I'd never call myself a master strategist.
Garrison
Donor
This is just ludicrously glib. You are talking about completely changing Hitler's personality, providing him with capabilities there is no evidence he ever possessed and frankly something close to clairvoyance in his decision making.
And the OP has made it clear his dubious POD is in 1940, so everything in Hitler's life experience and development up to that point is the same.
Last edited:
Well i have seen what several years of drug abuse and getting clean can do to a human and how it can change a personality.
So while i consider your change of Hitler's personality a BIG stretch (at least for his time of coming clean) i give you the benefit of doubt for the entertainment value.
I have to stress at this point that there is a clear difference between intentional and unintentional drug abuse here. I doubt very much that Morell wanted to get Hitler addicted to anything whatsoever. He was the kind of doctor that went South for the winter, quacking all the way, but I would have to say that initially it was more a case of slight poisoning. Hitler's diet was such that he was an extremely, erm, smelly chap, as he broke wind with regularity and vehemence and Morell was able to treat his stomach cramps. Over the course of his time as Hitler's doctor he treated him with up to 74 different substances, but it wasn't until the middle to end of the war (1943 onwards) that he started to go more berserk with the pills, injections and eye drops. Again I need to check this, but I don't think that Hitler was in a drug-addled haze in 1939-40.
He wasn't, your read is correct. I'd recommend the interesting book Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany. It's mostly about Morrell's treatment of Hitler and the effects on the latter's body and mind. Be warned, it gets... graphic.
Garrison
Donor
Looking at Hitler's record you would have to say that 1939-40 is the period when Hitler was at his most lucid and certainly not in any sort of haze. He was still listening to his Generals and they were still able to influence his decision making. Even if you accept that the Halt Order at Dunkirk originated with Hitler, which is debatable, its hard to argue it was irrational. It only applied to the Panzer divisions who were in need of an opportunity to regroup and reorganize. With hindsight you can certainly argue it was a mistake, but irrational? I don't think so.
- Status